Indian mounds in Monroe County, Miss. Looted

In northern Mississippi, 41-year-old Jerome Daniel Young of Nettleton and 36-year-old Marty Dean Kennedy of Wren have been arrested by the Monroe County Sheriff's Department as suspects in an ongoing investigation for violating the Antiquities Act. They are accused of digging into an Indian mound in Monroe County.

Sheriff Cecil Cantrell and his men recovered five artifacts Saturday after the two had sold them to a man in Nettleton. [...] "we've probably recovered somewhere between, at this point, 70 [different items]." [...] The artifacts were sold for $1,300 and then sold again for a profit, Cantrell said.

The investigation is ongoing, and several other people are believed to be involved in trade in these items.

Already investigating authorities have been notified of another episode of looting of a Native American burial site. Landowner Mike Harris contacted the Sherrif's office on Monday to say that he had caught people more than once digging on his property.

Signs of digging are found throughout the area which used to be a Native American settlement and later a place of rest for the dead. Sheriff Cantrell says the two men recently arrested admitted to stealing antiquities from a mound in the Aberdeen area, but they have not confessed to any other crime. "It's the same thing as digging in somebody's grave the way I see it. We've always been told if we turned them in all they could do is get them for trespassing," Harris said.

Members of the Chickasaw Nation are expected to travel to Northeast Mississippi to view more than 70 antiquities that have been recovered.

Sources:
Wayne Hereford, 'Indian mounds in Monroe County desecrated', WTVA 19.03.12
Susan Parker, 'Indian mound investigation continues' WTVA 19th March 2012

Antiquities Dealer Edgar Owen: South American Antiquities for Sale

.
It might be worth looking at some of the things Mr Owen sells. I was quite taken by the range of Central and South American antiquities he has acquired and now has on offer. He assures buyers that they are all "authentic", but somehow fails to note in any of the 55 cases how, when and accompanied by what kind of documents they left the source country. These are: Mexico (all figurines including some Nayarit types - on the ICOM red list), Costa Rica (one), Panama (six), Colombia, Ecuador, and many from Peru. All countries with active looting and smuggling. Several of which now have MOUs with the US Government intended to stop the latter. So how were these items originally acquired and removed from the source country?

All his website offers is that they were all "Purchased by the current owner from a well known and highly respected Manhattan antiquities dealer in the 1990's". So well-known indeed that to give the name obviously is considered superfluous. Under some of the items is the additional, not very precise, information that these items are "From a large New Jersey collection" (one says the collection is a "New York" one). One presumes most of this material is from the sale of a single collection. Interestingly in the case of five items (all figures) there is the information that the object bears what the seller calls "museum numbers" with no further explanation of which museum, and how the objects are thought to have left the museum collection and entered the market. Obviously, in order to set potential clients' mind to rest, there should be (all the more so in the light of the seller's known personal views disputing the rights of state institutions such as museums to lay claim to saleable antiquities). One item has 1966 authentication papers.

Obviously the mention of a single owner who bought these items from a single seller in the "1990s" is not exactly the kind of collecting history which would be required by a responsible collector, anxious to acquire items exported either before antiquities preservation legislation was instituted in the source country or items obtained and exported in accordance with such laws. So where were these items before then, and where is the paperwork which documents their previous history? Whether or not the current vendor considers the legislation of these other countries to be "good" or "bad" laws, some sort of documentary material should be available for clients who nevertheless want goods obtained in accordance with the prevailing laws. Will they get any from Mr Owen? His website does not give any hint about what material of that nature he is able to offer.

What is more interesting is the nature of the material on offer. We do not know what percentage of the whole collection is on sale here, but the objects collected fall into two main categories: pots (red on my map) and figurines (blue on map). Most of the figurines could be characterised by the word "whimsical" and many of the pots (like the one with phallic handles and the "whistling pots") as "novelties". There is very little utilitarian pottery in this collection. The point about this is that so often we hear collectors claiming that by collecting the material they do, they are 'studying' a culture (or cultures), learning about the past and other some such nonsense. Yet, when we have an opportunity to look over their shoulders we so often see something else. The New Jersey Collection we see represented here is a collection of geegaws, not any representative slice of the material culture of a group or groups, there is no "information" here in this cluster of collectables, just trophies. I am sure they looked very attractive and gave the owner a lot of pleasure, and made him look like the proper scholar in the eyes of the guests who came to the dinner parties and cocktail parties he used to throw. I am sure he had some salty anecdote connected with the phallic pot with which he would regale his guests. But let nobody kid themselves that this collection could be used for anything except satisfying some basic selfish and acquisitive streak. Sites were trashed to get this stuff, burials (probably) were desecrated to get some of it (like all those complete pots), but the result was not that an owner in foggy new Jersey would "learn" about the past, but merely bathe in its reflected romantic glory.

The "Chamelon Antiquities" Supplier Game

.

"Hi Group", blithely warbles your friendly internet dealer "Alex" [Alex Stanichev, Winettka, United States]:

Here is the link to all the fine ancient coins and artifacts ending soon. http://stores.ebay.com/cameleoncoins-and-artifacts

Let us have a look, and perhaps we can play a game. The dealer does not for a single one of these items give any information about the place it "surfaced". The buyer is expected obviously to part with his money no-questions-asked. Which ones of them (including the fakes) could not have come from a heavily looted country like Bulgaria and adjacent regions of the Balkans and Danubian limes? (Stanichev is a Bulgarian name - there is a famous politician with the same surname at the moment). Do the ones for which such a source is not likely fall into any sort of a group?

Most of these so-called "minor antiquities" offered by "Cameleon" are of metal (copper alloy mostly), how are they located and gathered up? Cameleon coins and artefacts has for a long time specialised in supplying the so-called "minor antiquities market" with complete pottery and glass vessels all of Roman date. Where can one most frequently dig up complete Roman pottery and glass vessels? Ask an archaeologist.

How are these objects getting into (UNESCO 1970 Convention member state since 1983) the United States of America? Ask the US Customs. The choice of name "Chameleon" may not be accidental. How come they (like the products of a dozen or so gentlemen of the Trade with similar commodities) have been openly sold under the noses of US archaeologists on EBay under that name since the end of March 2004? Ask US archaeologists. The AIA supports an MOU with a country like Bulgaria now, but we'd all like to know what active public outreach they had been doing before that about the open no-questions-asked sale of material like this in the long years of the open sale of material like this under their noses.

Vignette: Ćmielów chameleon.

Probation ordered for Blanding teacher in artifacts case

.

Emiley Morgan, 'Probation ordered for Blanding teacher in artifacts case', Deseret News Nov. 18, 2011.

David A. Lacy, 58, a Blanding school teacher was "indicted in May 2009 on nine counts of selling, stealing or offering to sell a number of archeological artifacts, including a turkey feather blanket, a basket mat fragment, a female apron/loin cloth, one complete woven sandal and two partial woven sandals". These he was accused of having taken in violation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and selling to an undercover informant in December 2007. This case has ended in the same way as those of 25 other individuals in the same area, caught in the same 'sting' and accused of stealing Native American artifacts from public lands and selling them. He pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of trafficking stolen artifacts and Native American cultural items. On Friday he was sentenced in the District Court Friday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba who "ordered him to spend one year on probation. As a condition of his probation, Lacy is not to enter government property for any reason other than travel".

The Four Corners case reveals how lightly the United States authorities treat the crimes of looting archaeological sites and grave-robbing even in their own land. It is a "one" on the ruler scale of Philistinic concern; slapped wrist and go and stand in the corner, and don't get caught doing it again. Pathetic.

So dealers are doing their level best to spread the word by giving most of the nation "Ancient Coins for education" using coins of dubious provenance donated to the scheme by other dealers and collectors. Does Blanding High offer a native version: "ancient pots and looted grave goods for Education"? What kind of message does this sentencing hand out to the next generation of potential artefact hunters and site looters?

Vignette: spare the rod and lose your archaeological record, but who cares, eh?

SAFE on Action Cerberus

.
SAFE Corner has an article today '"Operation CERBERUS Action": Neither overkill nor justice' referring to Operation CERBERUS Action, aimed at the illegal trafficking of Native American artefacts in the Four Corners area. It is argued that the outcome of the case is:

Neither overkill nor justice, we believe the outcome shows disrespect for the federal agents and informants who put themselves at risk to make the case, and to the public, which paid for the prosecution. Most disturbingly, the leniency sends the message that the law — in this case, Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act — are unimportant or do not apply to the Four Corners region, and will encourage rather than deter looters. We suspect that the descendants of those whose burial grounds were desecrated and whose remains were destroyed by looters would agree.

I'd be interested to hear what US archaeologists have been saying about all this, or - like their English counterparts - have they also given up on fighting this kind of exploitation of the archaeological record?

The American Bar Association: Who Put them up to It?

.

As noted above, there will be a panel session at a Dublin meeting of the American Bar Association International Law Section and its Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee in October on "the law of finds in England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the United States" called: The Future of Recording the Past in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United States.

One wonders who initiated this and with what aim. The significance is that it will be chaired by US lawyers Patty Gerstenblith (DePaul University College of Law) and ACCG board member and paid dealers' lobbyist Peter K. Tompa (Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC). Gerstenblith is the chairperson of the US Cultural Policy Advisory Committee (CPAC) set up by the [1970 UNESCO] 'Convention on Cultural Property Implementation (sic) Act' (CCPIA). As we have seen one currently fashionable tactic of the US antiquities dealers' lobby (coin dealers in particular) has been to insist on what I have termed here the "Witschonke principle". This basically insists that US lawmakers should (regardless of what the 1970 UNESCO Convention actually says) not feel obliged to do anything to help a foreign country to deal with an archaeological looting problem unless it adopts first the measures US collectors and dealers would like to be applied. These measures of course are such that would mean the least possible interference with free access of the trade to loads and loads of freshly dugup archaeological artefacts. Such a system is England's Treasure Act (only restricting sale of artefacts - excluding most coins - of gold or silver) with a voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme overlay to make it look good.

I cannot help but think that the aim here is to persuade the Chair of the CPAC to look more favourably at such proposals from the collecting community when more MOU proposals and renewals come before the CPAC, thus further undermining US resolve to do anything about the massive and damaging US no-questions-asked market in antiquities.

I would say that a heavy responsibility lies on participants Roger Bland, Stuart Campbell and Eamon Kelly to present their case in such a way as it separates issues of "finders" from that of the no-questions-asked commerce in archaeological artefacts which is what the CPAC (and the US Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee are primarily concerned with. In particular, will Dr Bland admit that every indication is that under his watch the amount of artefact hunting in England and Wales has been sharply increasing, instead of decreasing as a result of conscientious "archaeological outreach" by the PAS? Will anyone ask him for proper answers to the questions David Gill posed in the PIA forum session about the preservation of the archaeological record as a result of PAS "outreach"? Will the CPAC chair and her legal pals get a fully balanced picture of the long-term archaeological effects of current British policies on artefact hunting and collecting, or will they have to satisfy themselves with the standard "wottalottastuff-we-got" presentation of the PAS merely as an expanding database of the partial fruits of archaeological destruction?

SLT - "Thumb Down: 15 wrists slapped"

Salt Lake Tribune's feature 'The Thumb', Aug 12 2011 discusses the leniency of the US judicial system's Four Corner Looting verdicts:

THUMB DOWN: 15 wrists slapped
The score in the prosecution of people who illegally looted southern Utah archaeological sites and sold ancient artifacts is: pot hunters 15, the public and native tribes 0. Among 15 artifacts dealers tried in Judge Dee Benson’s federal court, not one has been sentenced to serve a day behind bars for their felonies. Incredibly, Benson told the latest pot hunter to appear before him that because he has "lost decades’ worth of collecting materials" and was a nice person, he would get only probation. What Vern Crites and others like him "lost" belonged to Indian tribes and were located on federal land. What about them?

Blanding Teacher Reaches Deal in Artefacts Case

.

It seems there has been yet another plead deal in the Four Corners looting case. David Lacy, a mathematics teacher of Blanding, Utah, was one of the 26 people indicted in Utah, New Mexico and Colorado recently as a result of the Operation Cerberus investigation into artefact looting and trafficking. Lacy, who is the brother of San Juan County Sheriff Mike Lacy, was set for a six-day jury trial on July 11.

He was indicted on accusations that he sold a woman's prehistoric loin cloth, a turkey feather blanket, a decorated digging stick, a set of knife points and other artefacts for more than $11,000. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and, until Thursday, it appeared his would be the only case to go to trial. [...] Lacy fought the charges in part because a felony conviction could disqualify him from his job as a high school teacher.

Though admitting to being in possession of these 'injun' artefacts presumably will not? Most of the remaining 24 defendants (including two co-defendants charged alongside Lacy), reached plea agreements with federal prosecutors. None has been sentenced to prison (though Kevin Shumway has yet to be sentenced - that will happen Sept 16th). Two of the accused committed suicide rather than face charges.

On Thursday, both Lacy's attorney, Matthew Lewis, and assistant U.S. attorney Richard McKelvie declined to comment on the details of the "agreement in principle" they had reached. McKelvie said a change of plea hearing will be held in July, although no date has been set.

Source: Jennifer Dobner, 'Blanding teacher reaches deal in artifacts case', DeseretNews, June 30, 2011

Vignette: Goodbye Mr Chips

ANS: Heath Tries to Persuade

.
The next contribution to the American Numismatic Society (ANS) discussion about "Ancient Coins and the Cultural Property Debate" (see the post above this) is a text by archaeologist ("lifetime ANS member") Sebastian Heath who is there to present the archaeological view ( Peter Tompa is the next contributor invited ). I must admit I found Heath's text disagreeably smarmy in tone and lacking somewhat in content (the first two paragraphs are solely about the author - repeating to some extent Witschonke's introduction - so a slow start).

The archaeological content is missing because like coiney Witschonke in the preceding piece, Heath inexplicably presents an object-centred view. In his all-too brief presentation, a hoard (the Frome Hoard from England) is contrasted with coins the selling of which somehow (not really explained) "leads to further destruction of knowledge about the ancient world" because "the coins found by a detectorist and his mates could have been of great cultural importance". Well obviously they are not, I discuss this case in some detail on this blog (Wednesday, 6 October 2010, Wisconsin Reverend has Metal Detecting Friends in the UK and here, 20 October 2010 More Coins Fresh from the English Archaeological Record on Sale in Wisconsin ) and list the sort of coins involved.* Its not the coins that are important here, but the fact that they were ripped from an unknown site or sites without any form of documentation, which is information that can never be put back into the archaeological record. The archaeological information contained in those sites has been damaged or destroyed just so that somebody across the sea can have a few more coins to fondle.

Sadly, Heath gives his readers not an inkling of the fact that what is of importance is not that "the coins are taken" to fuel the expanding no-questions asked market, but "what they are taken from" and the damage caused when this occurs. That is what the archaeologist invited to contribute to this debate should surely be getting over here.

Perhaps he cannot do that for two reasons. The first is that the USA where this debate is taking place has no archaeological sites of its own producing these ancient coins. The looting the market for "minor" (sic) metal artefacts from Antiquity causes is perhaps not so much in-your-face over there as it is on this side of the Atlantic. The American collector is divorced from it somewhat, these apparently are wholly abstract concepts for them - but this should not apply to Dr Heath who has worked over here if I am not mistaken. Also this is just a result of the narrow focus of such people, looting of other artefactual material does take place in the US and the destruction to the archaeological record is just as great if it is Anasazi pots or Attic pots and coins being dug out.

Perhaps a more significant reason is that Heath chose the British Isles as his example, and as we all know, "metal detecting" is not there in any way (we are asked to believe) "damaging", but instead the British artefact collectors plundering British sites for collectables some of which are destined for the international market are (we are asked to believe) British archaeology's "partners". It would have been better if Heath had taken Bulgaria as his example - for that is clearly where very many of the coins on the US market are coming from, and the issues are far clearer. The photos from Archar for example are really shocking.

[*Far more apposite as a contrast to Heath's hoard example would have been the comparison with another dodgy deal of the same seller: Monday, 8 March 2010 Wisconsin Clergyman Sells Unprovenanced Augustan Coin hoard on eBay].

Vignette: this should be about conservation, not saving numismatic information.
Threatened heathland at Hawley Common, Rushmore England.
.

Illinois Archaeological Site Looted

.

Artefact hunters have damaged and looted an archaeological site of the Woodland and Mississippian cultures on farmland in southwestern Illinois. Large holes were dug with shovels into the excavated area in a hasty search for artefacts after the students had left the site after work on Friday. The thieves also broke into a locked equipment storage box and stole a $200 piece of surveying equipment. The damage was discovered on Monday morning, but heavy rain on Friday night erased any tracks the vandals may have left. The vandals caused so much damage that the team will have to begin the dig again.

Looter's hole in the middle of an excavation square

It is reported that the finds present on the site were of low monetary value, "there is nothing of commercial value here. You couldn't sell it," Gregory Vogel, an assistant professor with the archaeological field school at Southern Illinois University's Edwardsville campus, told the Belleville News-Democrat.

George Pawlaczyk, 'So much work, and it was gone': Vandals hit SIUE archaeology dig', Belleville News-Democrat, Jun. 14, 2011
Read more:

Chad Garrison, 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: Vandals Destroy Archaeological Dig at Southern Illinois - Edwardsville', Riverfront Times, Jun. 15 2011

Of course this digging is only visible (and being written about) because it took place on a site currently being investigated. The holes dug by artefact hunters, looking for exactly the same types of artefacts on exactly the same type of rural site, don't make it to the press, but are no less deep and wide, no less damaging to the archaeological record. And this is going on all the time, in the daytime, in evenings at weekends, but nobody bats an eyelid. It is the collector's "right" to collect the pro-collecting advocates say. They claim the right to create this kind of devastation of archaeological sites wherever and whenever they take a fancy, sometimes keeping within the law (only on private land with permission), sometimes breaking the law. It makes no difference to them, neither does it make much difference to the people who buy the artefacts coming from such diggings.

Scrap ARPA and set up a Portable Antiquities Scheme for the USA?

.
Over in the US collectors and dealers somewhat repetitively assert some such nonsense as the Witschonke premise which is the US should do nothing to help nations whose archaeological heritage (I think he means "coins") is threatened by looting until they adopt measures to protect that heritage approved by the USA. In his opinion, that is the adoption of the "British system" of a Treasure Act and a voluntary 'portable antiquities scheme'. Yesterday we saw the same proposal again being put out by an ACCG coin dealer:

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme which prevail in the United Kingdom are the best (and almost the only) existing example of intelligently devised, successful antiquities laws, and in my view something resembling this should be universally adopted. Although the existing political climate does not favor such a sensible and practically motivated resolution of differences, I believe that the adoption of a global Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, with appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States presently restricting private ownership of and export of archaeological antiquities, would do far more to control looting of archaeological sites than any possible combination of repressive and punitive measures.

It is really quite tiresome to have these Americans attempting to dictate to the whole world how they 'should' run their affairs, or they will not get the Uncle-Sam-Seal-of-Approval. Instead of telling everybody else what to do and expecting them to jump when ordered to jump, maybe they could lead the way by example. Set the moral lead. Quite obviously before dictating what others 'should' do, they should first set up such a system in their own country before encouraging others to do the same. The USA has considerable problems with looting of archaeological sites by artefact collectors. The undocumented exploitation of otherwise unthreatened archaeological sites by lithics collectors and pot diggers is a source of damage to the archaeological record in the USA. While it is restricted by law on public and 'Indian' lands which vests control of archaeological material there to the state (just as much as in Egypt, Greece or any other source countries), this does not stop the looting, and the losses to the archaeological record due to site exploitation on private land to serve the expanding collector market are also considerable. I read an account of a US archaeologist who said that in many regions of the USA there is not a single ancient site within walking distance of a means of access which had not been visited and searched by arrowhead hunters. According to him, they are being collected away just as surely as the sites in the Sahara. So US legislation is not protecting the archaeological record there from undocumented damage by collectors and looters.

Perhaps then US antiquity dealers would like to draft a proposal to change US legislation to take into account the proposal that state ownership of archaeological remains is not stopping looting in places like the Four Corners area and does nothing to stop the destruction of sites on land not owned or administered by the state. Let them propose a system like the British one which they insist is the "only intelligent way forward" for OTHER countries. Let them first apply it at home. Why don't they?

How would 'Treasure' be defined in terms of native American and Early Colonial artefacts? In order to make sense and selectively get archaeologically significant items vested in the state it would have to cover archaeologically significant artefacts and assemblages of all the ancient cultures of the country, from Archaic campsites, western pueblos and caves, Woodland and Moundbuilder sites of the east, as well as artefacts from early colonial forts, settlement and trade routes. Once a list of such items has been drawn up and agreed, all that is needed is for the dealers and collectors force the scrapping of scrap the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and related measures and institute their new National Treasures Act which defines state ownership of the designated artefact types, and lays down the process of an inquest and museum acquisition, with the full market value being split between finder and landowner (where the latter is the state, the finder only getting his due share). Just like the British model they want OTHER countries to adopt.

Then to set up a US Portable antiquities Scheme state-wide to cover all the thousands of non-Treasure items found annually by artefact hunters and members of the public, arrowheads, baskets, potsherds, colonial artefacts. How would that be organized to give equivalent coverage to that in the UK? How many Finds Liaison Officers would there have to be to cover the entire USA? What is the optimum distance between them, where would they be based (museums, academic institutions, parks services)? Who would finance it and co-ordinate its activities, and how much would it actually cost?

It seems to me that unless US collectors and dealers are willing to take steps to introduce such a system into the administrative system of their own country and iron out all the problems that would arise from doing this (making the "appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States" in the case of their own), then they really should refrain from making comments about what they think other ('source') nations should be doing to accommodate the US market in dugup antiquities. The Witschonke Premise is a bankrupt premise while US dealers and collectors steadfastly refuse to even consider putting it into action in the case of their own country. It is just the epitome of US hypocrisy.

The US antiquities market has a turnover of millions of dollars annually, their lobbyists have access to considerable resources. If they really believe in the Witschonke Premise, let them commission a feasibility study from the Cultural Property Research Institute, or a real academic institution such as the Capitol Archaeological Institute (CAI) at George Washington University, or maybe the Getty Institute to scrap the ARPA and replace it by a system modelled on the 'exemplary' and 'intelligent' British legislation and then submit it to public consultation. Let us see some honest and transparent debate developing in place of the hypocrisy and glibness that characterises the position of the US no-questions-asked-marketeers.

Four Corners Fiasco: Joseph M. Smith and his Artefact Collection

.
From Kimberly Alderman's Cultural Property & Archaeology Law blog:

Federal prosecutors have entered into deals in three more of the Four Corners antiquities trafficking cases. For Meredith Smith, they’ll drop the charges if she doesn’t get charged with any other crimes in the next six months. Tad Kreth had his charges reduced from 17 counts to 1, and the prosecutors will recommend probation. And Joseph Smith has had his charges reduced from 38 counts to 1, and he’ll have to forfeit the Native American artifacts he owns.

Kimberly calls this "The Four Corners Sideshow" and accuses the authorities of "overcharging" the defendants to justify the scale of the operation. She subtitles her blog "A legal resource for archaeology and cultural property enthusiasts", but I am not quite sure what sort of message she intends sending archaeology "enthusiasts" by what she writes. The United States is arguably at the moment one of the largest markets in the world for looted archaeological artefacts. As such, one would expect the cultured people of that nation would be doing something about it, reducing the damaging effects of the actions of the cowboys and dodgy dealers in their midst rather than encouraging them. But instead we can see that they cannot even deal with the destroyers of the archaeological heritage in their own country and many of those talking about the issues over there are lawyers who seem from what they write almost to side with the eroders of history. But then there is big money in collecting, isn't there?

As for the scale of the operation, what is being investigated in cases like this is usually an exceptionally clandestine process. “ARPA investigations can be as complex as murder cases,” Todd Swain said in a 2007 analysis ('Cultural Resource damage on the Public Lands, what the statistics Show' (Yearbook of Cultural Property Law 7). They do need the expenditure of considerable resources, which is what makes it frustrating that cases like this, instead of awakening concern about the ongoing looting of America's archaeological heritage, there is more criticism of the authorities for trying to deal with the problem despite the obvious hindrance the crappy US laws and lack of a centrally coordinated heritage protection system create.

Whether or not anyone was "overcharged" is debatable. I note that Joseph M. Smith , 31, from Blanding mentioned above has (had) an "artefact collection" which presumably federal authorities had reason to believe contains items illicitly obtained (I assume he'll not be losing anything which is properly 'papered' with positive proof of licit provenance). He was initially charged (together with some other people) with a number of counts of selling items which it was alleged were obtained illegally. But that is not his whole collection, and one may presume the transactions mentioned in the charge sheet are only those for which federal authorities (claim to) have documented proof. According to the Salt Lake Tribune article 'A breakdown of the artifact theft charges', they are: "17 felony counts of violating ARPA, eight felony counts of theft of government property, two felony counts of theft of Indian tribal property, one misdemeanor count of theft of Indian tribal property". Smith however admits going onto land and taking artefacts from where he should not have.

Hamilton said his client, Joseph M. Smith, intends to admit in court that he took artifacts from public lands. “But what he is guilty of is a misdemeanor.” [...] “He wasn’t like some of the others that had literally truckloads of artifacts,” Hamilton said. “He was more of a construction worker who walks through the desert.”

The additional charges were dropped because of uncertainty about the financial value of the artefacts concerned.

Then there was Carl Lavern Crites "two felony counts of violating ARPA, two felony counts of theft of government property, one felony count depredation of government property". Crites is a collector and dealer of American Indian items. Overcharged? He had just three objects in his store and collection? Or is every single other item in his store and collection papered showing undeniable licit origin? Another cultural property lawyer with an ambiguous position on this case Derek Fincham points out, there is "no obligation" in US law for them to have so (and he is right of course - US law is woefully deficient in several regards where cultural property issues are concerned). Crites however admitted to taking part in illegal excavation of an ancient (Native American) grave looking for collectable artefacts in September 2008. Was this really the first and only time he'd ever done anything like this, or was it the only occasion where Federal authorities could document it?

Then we have the Redds, James, Jeanne and Jerrica. A sad case as James - who had reportedly been in trouble with the law before over related matters, but not only - decided to commit suicide rather than face the charges. But rather oddly it was his wife that was the cause of the raid on their home in June. She surrendered a collection of over 800 artefacts in 112 boxes (it needed two trucks to take them away). Again was this collection properly papered with collecting histories showing licit origins? Mention is made in the receipt of lots and lots of artefacts, but not a single mention of any files of documentation or collection catalogue cards. She was initially charged on seven or eight counts, her husband only one of them (together with her) and the daughter with three which apparently emerged during examination of whatever evidence there was about how the artefacts in their home were obtained.

But this was apparently not the first time that the artefact collecting activities of the Redd family had brought them into conflict with the authorities ('Couple agree to pay fine for digging up Anasazi site').

In 1996, a San Juan County sheriff's deputy found the Redds and several children digging near prehistoric ruins in Cottonwood Wash near Bluff. Charges were first filed the following year. The charges included desecration of a corpse, a felony. The charge against James Redd, 52, was dismissed. Assistant Utah Attorney General Joanne Slotnik said that was because Jeanne Redd "was the prime mover and the one most interested in these sorts of relics." The state's suit alleged the Redds destroyed a prehistoric grave site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Jeanne Redd's plea agreement argued that if an ancient grave had been disturbed, it was on private land.

Reportedly "They asserted they had the right to dig at an Anasazi ruin on private land, but a survey later showed the site was on state land" (Joe Bauman, 'Anasazi case is finally put to rest', Deserte news Jan. 26, 2003). They had been threatened by a $250,000 lawsuit brought by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration which James and Jeanne Redd apparently settled by making a payment of $10,000 in 2003. Despite this, the Redd family apparently continued to collect artefacts, and the raid on June 10th 2009 and the consequent charges were the results of this. In the case of the acquisition of at least seven of those artefacts federal authorities believed they could document illicit origins, and in the event Jeanne Redd pleaded guilty to all seven. What 'overcharging' was applied here?

Neither do I think it likely that the two dozen people investigated and charged as a result of Operation Cerberus are the only people in the Four Corners area involved in the illegal acquisition of artefacts from the looting of archaeological sites in the region. Judge Waddoups seems to express the idea that since everybody has been doing it, it would be invidious to give those actually caught doing it sentences as severe as the law lays down. But these people all know that in doing what they do they are breaking the law (I expect they themselves would add "technically"). This looting of protected sites is clearly a huge problem and - despite the existence of laws ostensibly to protect the US archaeological resource - the US judicial system now seems to be giving a signal that the US administration actually intends to do nothing much about it. They are just giving offenders a slap on the wrist, and an admonition 'not to do it again'. That's what, for example, the Redds got in 2003, but six years later and apparently eight hundred dugup artefacts later, that is what they seem to have been found to have been doing.

Vignette: Anasazi bowl, Chaco Canyon - this one not looted.

More Guilty Pleas in Four Corners Looting Case

.
Three Utah residents have pleaded guilty in a federal court on Friday to trafficking stolen artifacts from federal and tribal lands in southern Utah. Reece Laws, Tad Kreth and Joseph Smith, Blanding residents, pleaded guilty, "taking American Indian artifacts from public lands". The mere formality of sentencing is set for July 18.

"A federal prosecutor says an indictment for a fourth defendant, Meredith Smith, will be dismissed if she doesn't commit any crimes for next six months".

Chi-Chi Zhang, 'Several Utahns plead guilty to American Indian artifact looting' Associated Press, April 29, 2011

Back in July last year (San Juan Record - 'Antiquities cases work way through court system '): "To date, there have been no trials related to the charges, but several are planned. An October trial date has been set for Blanding residents Joseph M. Smith, Meredith Smith, Tad Kreth, Reece Laws and Brandon Laws before Judge Stewart".

These cases had a bit of a 'twist' in them in that for some months there was some wrangling about the value of the objects involved and whether or not Arizona antiquity dealer Dace Hyatt could testify for the defence in the case (the prosecution argued he could not be a court expert as he had no archaeological training, and had earlier been quoted in newspapers calling the Operation Cerberus 'entrapment'), the court decided he could testify (Artifacts Dealer is an 'Expert' Says Federal Judge). The defence of the accused argued that establishment of the monetary value of the items concerned was important because there is a minimum value in federal law for felony charges. Loss of archaeological value of course cannot be measured.

Blanding Artefacts Sentence Cut

.
Readers might remember the curious case of a US District Court judge (Clark Waddoups) who says looting of the archaeological resource in the United States of America is "justified", even if in contravention of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. He was the one who sentenced the first two defendants in the Four Corners looting case, setting a precedent of lenience which makes a mockery of the whole procedure of investigation and apprehension of people engaged in looting archaeological sites for collectable items for personal entertainment and profit. The two had admitted to multiple felonies of excavating, possessing and selling prehistoric pottery and personal ornaments in contravention to US law. As part of the plea, Jeanne Redd had agreed to give up all of the artefacts in her collection, surrendering 112 boxes of artefacts, including reportedly human remains. As part of a plea bargain, she had pleaded guilty to seven felonies: two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft of government property and three counts of theft of American Indian tribal property. Each carried potential fines of $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. Daughter Jericca Redd, admitted to three felonies for digging up a seed jar, a vase and a pottery vessel in 2008, on the Navajo reservation. They both got probation and a fine. According to the Deseret Times:

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups terminated the remaining 18 months and six months, respectively, of probation for [...] Jeanne Redd, and daughter Jerica Redd. Both had paid fines in full and had complied with all conditions of their probation, according to court records.

It is a good job then that Judge Waddoups did not require that the two restore the integrity of the archaeological record at every single point from which they dug thousands of artefacts a selection of which was in those 112 boxes. That of course is considerably more difficult than persuading jovial Judge Waddoups to let them off. In fact it is impossible. Through their deliberate, selfish and illegal activities these women have destroyed that evidence for ever. And the US legal system apparently does not really give a hoot, after all, its not really "US cultural heritage" (sic) is it, its just "injun pots" involved isn't it? No wonder collectors and dealers over there cannot be persuaded to respect other countries' heritage protection laws when it seems civil society over there apparently has so little respect for their own.
.

Rory Tyler: "Rewrite the Artifact Law"

.
Rory Tyler, Moab radio personality and "cowboy poet" has a letter in the Salt Lake tribune (Jan 08 2011) called "Rewrite the Artifact Law" - doing his bit for US collectors' rights that the foreign-dug ancient-coin-focussed ACCG will not do. This is what he says:

[...] clearly there is no way to currently prevent looting of ancient artifacts. Where a black market exists, someone will supply its demands. [...] We need a new paradigm because the current one for protection and preservation is failing. [...] As long as the artifact black market exists, it’s going to be cops and robbers in the canyons.

First of all let us note that it is for him unquestionable that the looting odf archaeological sites in his country is taking place because people are collecting the things dug up. We note that the US coineys, wholly illogically, deny this connection strenuously. Mr Tyler however sees no need to defend this notion, and - frankly - nor do I.

In his letter, Tyler calls for a legalising of the market in dugup antiquities. Sadly he misses the main point, he has been drawn into artefact fetishisation by the collectors' propaganda. Perhaps here is a point US archaeologists and preservationists need to get over more forcibly. It is of course not "who owns artefacts" that is the problem. The law is not the "Artifact law" (sic) but the 1906 Antiquities Act (see 16 U.S.C. § 431 to § 433) and the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub.L. 96-95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 470aa–470mm) - designed not to channel "artefacts" into one set of hands or another but to protect the archaeological record from being dug over clandestinely for entertainment or profit in search of collectables.

Under the impression that this is about ownership of clandestinely-excavated artefacts, Tyler proposes a solution for consideration:

Today, the richest troves of Southwestern artifacts exist in collections, public and legal, and private and often illegal. Rewrite the Antiquities Act this way: Declare amnesty for possession of all existing artifacts. Record and register them and allow owners to buy, sell, trade or donate them in a regulated market. This would accomplish several things.

First, the new artifacts that would become available to collectors would overwhelm the black market, reducing or ending the incentive for looting.

Second, an artifact’s history, that information valuable to scientists, would be recovered before it’s completely lost — for example, a family story about where Uncle Earl found it.

Third, create a digital catalogue, a virtual museum of items hitherto unavailable to researchers.

This is more or less what Dave Welsh is suggesting for other types of artefacts. Maybe the ACCG should reconsider its policy of not collaborating with local collectors of locally dug artefacts so US collectors are singing from the same songsheet.

As for Mr Tyler's suggestions, the "new artefacts" would only become available for collectors to swamp the black market if the collectors owning the now-legitimised artefacts decide to sell them, why should they? The other two notions sound like what the PAS is doing in the UK with the artefacts other collectors have dug up all over the place.

What is unclear is how Mr Tyler's suggestion of legalising the market in dugup archaeological artefacts from protected sites, so it is no longer "black", will in any way effect preservation of the archaeological sites from which they are being dug. What would be to stop looters going out to dig up a whole lot more during this period of amnesty? In any case the felony is not so much the "possession of artefacts", but the unauthorised digging into protected sites. I feel that were Mr Tylor's suggestion be adopted, there would be a lot of artefacts which their owners would be claiming were found "over there by my Late Uncle Earl" - rather than admitting that it was they who were wielding the shovel.

Yahoo Artefact Collectors: "Collectors Not Responsible"

.
Over on Tim Haines' Yahoo AncientArtifact list one may find a clear statement indicating that the collectors gathered there are not responsible:

Since the so-called Renfrew dictum was first voiced, the notion that looting is caused by private collecting of unprovenanced antiquities has gained a great deal of credence, becoming an article of faith for many archaeologists and others with an interest in archaeology, without their ever making individual in depth investigations as to whether this was really true. Because of my interest in understanding the intersection between collecting and cultural property law, I sought to determine the factual basis for this dictum, and found that nothing had ever been published that amounted to a scientifically valid proof, or even any real evidence tending to support such a conclusion. What has been published to date is instead much information regarding the extent of looting and illicit export/import of antiquities, and assertions to the effect that collectors are morally responsible for ascertaining the provenance of their acquisitions [regardless of whether it is practical to do so]. [...] The notion that looting is caused by private collecting of unprovenanced antiquities, so far as I can determine, is merely a perception, [...]

So there we have it. No need for collectors to feel at all responsible that all over the ancient world sites are being emptied by artefact hunters seeking collectables. There is "no scientific proof", it is all a mistaken perception and speculation and all the archaeologists and preservationists are wrong and the exploiters are right.

What about the explosion of looting on ancient sites in eastern Africa seeking collectable bits of terracotta figurines? The discovery of the Nok (and related) terracottas by western markets was the reason why sites in Nigeria, Burkina Faso and other countries were dug over to find them. How is no-questions-asked collecting "not responsible" there?

What about the denuding of surface sites in the Sahara of collectable artefacts such as stone beads, bracelets, and stone implements not due to collectors? They often buy them in bulk which are not even sourced to country, so totally decontextualised. How are collectors buying these things without asking where they come from "not responsible" for the continued denudal of these site?

All those temples in Southest Asia with their rows of decapitated statues, how are no-questions-asked collectors of exotic art "not responsible" there?

These are just three cases of many more where one can very safely interpret the evidence to support the postulate that no-questions-asked collecting has led to severe destruction of the cultural heritage by looters. The manner these collectors have chosen to acquire objects is responsible for the looting. In these cases there is no scientific evidence that collectors are "not responsible" for the looting. If AncientArtifact collectors wish to dispute that and provide scientific evidence that this looting was not a consequence of the collectiing of terracotta sculptures, Neolithic stone tools and "buddha" heads, then I am sure we would all be only too willing to hear it.

Over in the UK metal detectorists are busy emptying sites of collectable artefacts. That is what they are after, a new "hammie" or "Lizzie" or whatever to add to their collection (and that which they do not want can always be found a new home through eBay). The reason for this activity (artefact hunting) is collecting, most artefact hunters are artefact collectors, or they are doing it commercially for other collectors. Its not really a matterof seeking scientific prof that this is the case, one can go and talk to these people, see the stuff they have in their collections.

Over the other side of the Atlantic, those pot diggers rummaging around in 'Anasazi' pueblos and burial grounds are after collectable artefacts too. They are either collectors themselves, or are digging commercially to sell to people who are. Once again, it would be hard to challenge the postulate that (mere racially-inspired and other vandalism apart) the destruction of the archaeological heritage in regions where this occurs is driven by the desire of collectors to acquire dugup artefacts. There certainly is no scientific proof produced by the US "collectors' rights" lobby that no-questions-asked collectors are "not responsible" for the erosion and destruction of the archaeological record of the USA through artefact hunting.

In fact though this problem is closest to the US collectors and dealers arguing on Tim Haines' Yahoo discussion list and elsewhere that there is "no link" between what they themselves do and looting, no attempt is ever made by them to address the questions it raises about their own activities. It is here that we see the lie of the "no scientific proof" argument they haul out - it is not that the evidence is not there, it is just that a certain group of dealer-led collectors refuse to see it and think about it. Is that behaviour which can be regarded as "responsible"?
.

Vignette: Dugup Collectables.

To catch a Looter in the US

.
Damian Huffer over on SAFE Corner (Forensics, looting, and the law: The view from Ohio) discusses a series of courses organized by Montana-based Martin McAllister in Wayne National Forest near Nelsonville, Ohio. Their aim is to provide archaeologists and law-enforcement officials/investigators from around the region, and from across the US, the tools, on-the-ground training, and 'forensic' perspective they need to investigate cases of prehistoric and historic site looting. The forest contains a variety of archaeological sites spanning 12,000 years of occupation, and including Hopewell-culture burial grounds. The Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in Chillicothe has lootings reported monthly. "Sadly, archaeology sites are being looted every day," said McAllister. Antiquity trafficking is among the largest illegal markets in the world, but only 50 to 100 cases of artifact theft and trafficking make it to U.S. courts each year. In the United States there is a huge black market.

During the course,

Mock 'crime-scenes' illustrating several illicit surface collection and excavation scenarios were set up and then utilized, most illustrating evidence for the looting of small, portable prehistoric artifacts such as arrowheads. Field training went hand-in-hand with workshops on the finer points of local and national laws that permit the arrest and trial of looters caught in the act - an outcome which happens far too infrequently, even in the US

Huffer concludes his presentation of the article: if any readers of this blog know about current workshops or classes in their area of the world that are comparable to this, I'd love to hear about them. I wonder whether anyone will point him to the series of courses organized by Britain's Portable Antiquities Scheme? No? That's probably because there have never been any organized as part of their "outreach" by that organization.
.

Another Plea 'Deal' in Four Corners Looting Case

.
Antiquities dealer Vern Crites was one of 26 people charged as a result of the Four Corners operation Cerberus investigating looting of and trade in artefacts from land protected by US laws. He has already surrendered five truckloads of Native American relics to Federal authorities.

The 75-year-old dealer was described in government affidavits as a “price setter” for antiquities because of his influence over the market. Federal agents say he had an astonishing collection confiscated from his Durango home in January.

It is now being reported that he will "settle charges" of digging up a grave and plundering artifacts from federal lands. Vern Crites had been scheduled to take a plea deal on Tuesday at federal court in Salt Lake City, but the hearing was cancelled because of a snowstorm.

Another Durango man has pleaded guilty to removing an ancient human skull, pottery and a stone knife from federal land in the Four Corners of southern Utah.

Richard Bourret pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court in Salt Lake City to a felony charge of unauthorized excavation. U.S. District Court Judge Dee Benson scheduled sentencing for Feb. 1. Sixty-one-year-old Bourret faces a maximum of two years in prison, but prosecutors plan to recommend leniency as part of a deal that’ll drop two other charges. Crites and Bourret are expected to be ordered at sentencing to pay for damage at the San Juan County, Utah, dig site.

The newspaper helpfully adds:

The Four Corners once was the center of ancestral Puebloan culture, and it is a treasure trove of archaeological artifacts, Mark Michel, president of the Archaeological Conservancy, a national group based in Albuquerque told The Durango Herald in June 2009, when Vern and Marie Crites were arrested as part of sting operation targeting suspected illegal trades in stolen artifacts.
"There are thousands of archaeological sites in (the Four Corners), and I’ve never seen one that hasn’t had some looting,” Michel, who as worked in the area for 30 years, told the Herald.

This report sits uncomfortably with the texts which the US collectors of ancient dugup coins from foreign countries are producing. They bleat on and on about how its "not their fault" that sites are looted, that foreign nations must guard their archaeological sites from looting before they will stop buying anonymously imported artefacts no-questions-asked. Yet in their own land, the United States, they cannot afford or manage to do what collectors demand from the citizens of poorer countries. The "source countries" should enforce their laws more vigorously the collectors say - and yet after a costly two year operation to strike at the network of endemic looting and illcit dealing in the US Southwest we see plea bargain after plea bargain, letting people get off with a slap on the wrist instead of the jail sentences that the law allows. US law, upheld by US judges, one of whom said in effect that he was not going to give a proper sentence because he thought looting archaeological sites was a normal thing to do.

The words "private property" figure prominently in US antiquity collecting circles, once they've bought an artefact, it is THEIRS, sacrosanct, and nobody - they insist - has a right to question its origin. Yet Vern Crites' home was emptied of a collection which took five trucks to haul off. Where are the "collectors' rights" advocates? Why has this seizure (if that is what it was) received absolutely no attention in the discussions of the "private property rights" of US ancient artefact collectors? One would have thought that they would take great interest in precisely why Crites was required to surrender his "private property" a collection built up over a number of years, and why he agreed to do so. One would have thought that ancient dugup coin collectors in the US ought to be wondering if the same thing could happen to them too. But no, complete silence on the issue, because they insist that there is a vast gulf between pot-diggers at home and coin-diggers abroad. The reasons why they see them as completely different phenomena are never articulated, personally I see none at all.

Colorado Antiquity Dealer Sentenced

.
Antiquities dealer Robert B. Knowlton, 66, from Grand Junction Colorado, was among 26 people in Utah, Colorado and New Mexico who were rounded up in a two-year sting operation in the Four Corners region discussed earlier on this blog. He earlier admitted he had sold an archaeological resource, a small sandstone pipe, that had been excavated from an Anasazi site on federal land near Blanding to a federal undercover operative during an investigation in 2008 and mailed it from Colorado to Utah.

He was sentenced on Friday to 18 months of probation and "also banned from federal land for collecting purposes during the 18 months".

Knowlton was indicted in 2009 by a federal grand jury in Denver on five felony counts for allegedly selling looted American Indian antiquities worth $6,750 to the informant. In a plea deal, he pleaded guilty this year to a misdemeanor related to only the pipe, valued at less than $500.

Interestingly, Knowlton, had stated in a court filing that he had obtained the pipe after the death of Lamar Lindsay, an archaeologist employed by the state of Utah, from the latter's sister. The court document stated that the Utah Division of State History excavated the site in 1979 and 1980. So how had the pipe entered the sister's possession?

Robert Boczkiewicz, 'Colorado man sentenced for artifacts theft', Salt Lake Tribune Nov 19, 2010.

There is an interesting mention on the Lindsay episode by "Teofil" on the Collide-a-scape blog called simply "looting". It is followed by a thought-provoking series of comments. It would be interesting to know more about the manner in which this particular published (?) item reached a Colorado dealer. Was foul play involved, or were there legitimate reasons why the object was separated from the excavation archive and its intended destination was for some reason unknown to Lindsay's family?
.

Investigators Seek "Finders" in Arizona

.
Pot hunters seeking items to sell to no-questions-asked collectors of such things are looting Arizona’s historic ruins at an alarming rate, according to archaeologists and investigators with the Tonto National Forest (Morgan Loew, 'Archaeologists Hunt Grave Robbers In AZ Backcountry', CBS 5 News November 4, 2010). Scott Wood, an archaeologist for the Tonto National Forest took a CBS 5 News team to the scene of one of the most recent lootings, a place called Mud Springs Ruins, inhabited by the Hohokam 700 years ago. This lies nearly 30 miles away from the nearest paved road, but even so had been plundered by artefact hunters.
At the centre of the 50-room complex were two freshly dug holes which seem to have been dug within the past six months. “What they’re looking for are the painted, decorated pottery -- the stuff that’s most often found, unfortunately, in graves in this area,” said Wood.

Law enforcement field officers work with archaeologists and investigators in the national park to discover who is responsible for the destruction of sites like this, but it is difficult to find clues months after the crime and it is proving impossible for state officials to guard every archaeological site in a region around the clock. It is believed that many of the finds from this sort of artefact hunting ends up on the black market: “It’s national. It’s international. Stuff stolen here can end up in the market in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan. There’s a market all over the world,” said Wood, who said that looting of sites like this in the United States tends to increase during economic downturns, which means more of America's historic sites remain at risk.

See the slide show accompanying the article.

This is what artefact hunters are doing (also illegally) in the "source countries" to seek artefacts to sell on the US market, but for some reason US collectors of ancient artefacts from other countries do not want to see the connection between what foreign diggers do and what the US diggers are doing to ancient sites in North America. They build a mental wall between the two and expect us to allow them to treat them as entirely separate phenomena, and get very resentful when we refuse to be taken in by that ploy. At least not until they explain in an articulate and logical manner where the two are different.

Why do US "collectors' rights" advocates only campaign to uphold US collectors' "rights" (sic) to collect items illegally taken from archaeological sites abroad, but never rise to the challenge to support US collectors' "rights" to collect whatever they fancy from US sites in the same way? What IS the difference?